I am not seeing the need for that example - certainly that would be more indication, but I think what we have here is clear enough. There’s a big, Federal cake out there, which only married people can eat. Prior to DOMA, the federal government said to the states that they could decide who from their state would come be allowed to hav ea slice of cake. After DOMA, the federal government said states weren’t able to make that choice any more. While they are allowing states to continue to determine who is married for internal purposes, they are dramatically reducing the value of that determination.
OK, but if you can’t think of another example of anyone yelling “states’ rights” in that manner, then you’re inventing a new definition of that term and claiming hypocrisy. I could be wrong, but the only time I’ve heard a “states’ rights” claim is when the feds were telling the states that they had to do “x” or that they could not do “x”. I’ve never heard that claim made when the feds refused to do something the states were telling them they should do.
For instance… if a hurricane hits, say, Louisiana and the feds do a crappy job of responding, do we hear cries of “states’ rights” violation? I think not, even though the feds may have generally done better in the past.
It isn’t telling the feds to do something. It is a fundamental shift in the balance of powers as regards to marriage. The hurricane situation is totally different. Previously a state had the power to define who was married with regards to both the benefits the state would award, and also those awarded by the federal government. Now the feds are saying that the state’s definitional power is reduced. Imagine a situation where the federal government had previously given disaster relief money to the states, but is now saying they can only have it if they spend it where the federal government says.
I can imagine the right-leaning “states’ rights” folks giving the feds the finger and saying “no thanks”, but I can’t imagine them claiming they had “states’ rights” to the money. We had something similar happen with the stimulus money recently.
I found this interesting. The American Family Association’s lawyer says DOMA is “probably unconstitutional.”
[
](AFAs Lawyer Says DOMA Is Unconstitutional)
So, he’s focusing on the Full Faith and Credit aspect, not the discriminatory aspect.
Well, I can’t disagree with that. I’ve been saying that for years.